Also - to be clear - I'm not saying that denial of Christ is something to be taken lightly at all. All I'm saying is, if someone were to deny Christ at gunpoint - live to tell about it - then repent, there is forgiveness even in that situation. Look at Peter - he denied Jesus 3 times yet was still restored. That's the point I was attempting to make. Not "oh, it doesn't matter what you say and do because God doesn't care."

Guy, I too could throw around Bible passages out of context all day long to try to prove my point. Why are you always on the attack? And why do you feel the need to be a jerk to everyone? "anyone who has actually read the Bible" - Do these tactics usually help you gain a listening ear? Good grief, man. I'm on the same side here.

I agree wholeheartedly and would simply add that we need to be careful - in any context - of assuming we can judge people's motives for anything. Specifically regarding people who pray publicly before meals in restaurants; unless they're speaking so loud you can't help but hear them or they're waving their arms about to get attention, I assume that they're simply giving genuine thanks for the meal they are about to eat. I do not believe that holding hands as a family and speaking in a volume so as to hear each other speak (which, depending on the environment, obviously could be audible to others in the vicinity) is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 6.

As for the "assuming" the prayer - I would always ask permission when not sure about everyone's views and would simply pray silently if denied.

One final thought - I do pray for you, regularly - but wouldn't that be pointless I I thought your soul was already eternally damned? You know I don't buy that double predestination stuff. It's only too late when you're dead; just because you don't believe now, doesn't mean that can't change. I'm not giving up on you yet :)

I get where the concept of "once saved, always saved" comes from and I understand why people want to hold on to that. Help me understand this, though: what then do you do with all the passages in the NT that warn against falling away - 1 & 2 Peter, Jesus, Paul - why would they warn against falling away if such a thing isn't possible? 2nd, doesn't that imply that someone not saved really had no hand in the matter and God just arbitrarily wanted them to go to hell? 3rd, if I'm just "saved, always saved" then it really shouldn't matter what I do in this life, right? I mean, if nothing I do can jeopardize it once I'm saved, why not just do whatever I feel like - "sin all the more"? 4th, how would apply something like that to Matt? Do you think he's still "saved" or that he never was in the first place? If he's still saved, then that would imply if he were to die right now, he's going to heaven to be with Christ when he dies - and if THAT is true, then what about his blatant denial of God and Christ? Does that mean I can just deny Christ and no big deal? On the other hand, if he never was saved, what about all that happened during his life as a Christian - just a big joke? A farce? Didn't really have faith?

Again, I understand where this doctrine comes from and why people want to hold on to it, I just can't reconcile the implications. I'm curious to know your thoughts :)

I agree, Ronald - that's the point I was trying to make. I think it's unethical to dictate a system but I do not think it's "unethical" to question things - including God. Again, the only thing unethical I can come up with is that it would be unethical for me NOT to share the Gospel with others if I truly do believe it has the power to save lives. As Matt said, if I believe that then NOT sharing it would be like withholding the cure for cancer.

I understand all that, Matt. But you said "people approach me, generally Christians, whom [sic] think the idea of doubting god or god’s existence is unethical."

What I'm saying is how is doubting God unethical? That term doesn't fit. I'm not trying to nitpick semantics here or something, but I might be so bold/brash to say I think it's stupid or foolish not to believe in God, but not "unethical". But even there, I wouldn't say I think it's stupid/foolish to have tough questions or even doubts about God. He certainly knows I have. The way I've always looked at it is that in those tough times, rather than say "I don't like you, God, or the way you've presented yourself so forget you" I'll go to Him, fists flying in rage, if need be. Better to be angry AT God and talking TO Him rather than get mad and turn away from Him. The Psalms are full of instances where the Psalmist got ticked and yelled at God, but still always trusted Him. Does what I'm saying even make sense?

I get all that, I just don't understand how the term "unethical" fits in any way, shape, or form.

I don't even know what that statement means that it's "unethical to doubt God or His existence." Christians are telling you this? Frankly, as a Christian myself, on the surface it sounds kinda ridiculous to me as well.

I might argue that as a Christian who subscribes to God's Word it would be "unethical" of me to not share what I believe to be the life saving truth in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (e.g. Penn Jillette's comment "how much do you have to hate someone not to proselytize them"). However, to say that the act of doubting God is "unethical"...again, I guess I'm just puzzled because I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of scholars who would beg to differ with you that Job is not an allegory but actually a narrative. So as far as your assumption being a "fact", I'd have to disagree. (Just as I'd disagree with the "fact" that evolution not creationism is true). That's not to say all of the Bible is literal (parables of Jesus), but this isn't one of those.

Sorry, I'm a little confused (probably lack of sleep). What exactly is the "fact" that very few of us Christians know or understand?